Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The state of voting: Nov. 14, 2022

voting legislation updates

This weekly update summarizing legislative activity affecting voting and elections is powered by the Voting Rights Lab. Sign up for VRL’s weekly newsletter here.

The Voting Rights Lab is tracking 2,208 bills so far this session, with 583 bills that tighten voter access or election administration and 1,058 bills that expand the rules. The rest are neutral, mixed or unclear in their impact.

Last week, voters in a number of states had the opportunity to change certain election laws. In Nebraska, voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring photo ID to vote while Michiganders amended their Constitution to increase access to mail voting and in-person early voting and protect against election interference. Connecticut voters also approved an amendment allowing for in-person early voting.

Looking ahead: The Voting Rights Lab is still watching Arizona, where the Legislature asked voters to ratify a new photo identification law that would eliminate many of the ID options currently available to voters. Under current law, a voter can present either a photo ID or two documents with their name and address, such as a utility bill. The proposition would eliminate the second option. It would also require voters to provide a specific ID number, such as their driver’s license number, on their mail ballot envelopes.

Here are the details:


Michigan amends its constitution to increase voting access and protect against election interference. Michigan voters adopted Proposal 2, enshrining nine days of early voting in the state Constitution, expanding mail ballot access and ensuring election results will always be based on the votes cast. The new mail voting provisions provide ballot drop boxes statewide, prepaid ballot return postage, and a permanent list for voters who want to receive a mail ballot each election. Other mail ballot provisions – while new to the Constitution – reflect existing law and practice. These include a right to vote by mail to cure ballot envelope errors. Similarly, Proposal 2 adds the current voter ID rules – which allow voters who do not have an ID with them to vote with a regular ballot if they sign an affidavit affirming their identity – to the Constitution. Finally, the proposition ensures that election audits will be done transparently and professionally, and that elections will be certified smoothly, accurately reflecting the votes cast.

Connecticut poised to adopt early voting. Sixty percent of Connecticut voters supported an amendment to the state Constitution authorizing the General Assembly to establish in-person early voting. Connecticut is currently one of only four states, along with Mississippi, Alabama and New Hampshire, that do not offer all voters an opportunity to cast a ballot before Election Day. It is now up to the legislature to establish the parameters of future early voting opportunities.

Nebraska Constitution amended to require photo ID for voters. A state constitutional amendment requiring photo ID was approved by Nebraska voters with 66 percent of voters supporting the measure. While the details and exceptions will be determined by the Legislature, Nebraska will join the 21 other states that generally require photo ID to vote in person.

Nevada voters take a step toward adopting open primaries and ranked-choice voting. Voters in Nevada narrowly approved an amendment to the state’s Constitution to establish a system wherein five candidates would advance from an open primary. Voters would then rank up to five candidates in the general election. The amendment must be approved by voters again in 2024 in order to take effect.

Ohio amends its Constitution to block cities from allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections. Voters in Ohio approved an amendment to the state’s Constitution to prohibit municipalities from allowing residents who are not U.S. citizens from voting in their local elections. Louisiana will vote on a similar provision on Dec. 10.


Read More

Happy teacher asking girl with hand raised sitting in classroom at elementary school

Trump's education policies are reshaping public schools. Learn how Department of Education cuts, school boards, and local elections could shape children's futures.

Maskot / Getty Images

When It Comes to Our Children’s Education, Trump Gets An ‘F’

When grading a government, there should be no metric more telling than how the kids are doing. It may come as no surprise that they are not doing well–but if the kids are failing, it is because Trump has failed them. The United States has the highest child poverty rate of any wealthy nation, yet the president continues to systematically abandon children: stripping away vital affordability protections, dismantling public education infrastructure, and cutting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Plus, there’s the ongoing threat of gun violence in schools, the cruel realities facing migrant kids in detention centers, and now new threats to digital safety and youth mental health–an intersectional crisis that desperately requires federal attention while Trump is actively trying to prevent states from stepping up in the meantime. Each of these issues deserves its own op-ed, but today let’s talk about the silver bullet for addressing inequality and building a resilient, inclusive society: public education. Its days may be numbered, but you can help.

In a move characteristically devoid of compassion, President Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), mandated that federal funding would be conditional on cutting all diversity, equity, or inclusion programs, and urged Congress to abolish the DOE outright. Following suit, Congress proposed and enacted budget cuts to reduce essential funding for programs supporting low-income students, students with disabilities, and otherwise vulnerable populations. The Supreme Court decision to allow mass layoffs at the Department of Education only worsens this crisis, reducing the department’s ability to assist schools during these challenging times. These combined federal actions will have far-reaching consequences for children and communities across the country. School’s out for summer? School might be out forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System
a doctor showing a patient something on the tablet
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

How My Benzodiazepine Experience Impacted the Trust I Have in the Healthcare System

During my junior year of high school, I was prescribed my first benzodiazepine, called lorazepam, at 16 years of age. At the time, my parents and I did not understand the potential consequences of long-term use of benzos. Like so many other patients out there, we trusted that the healthcare system would not only provide treatment and correct guidance to move forward with my prescriptions, but I never realized they would be the force that would ruin my future and so many dreams I had for my young adulthood.

What followed was a years-long struggle with severe medication dependence and withdrawal that fundamentally changed my life for the worse.

Keep ReadingShow less
Constitution of the United State with the U.S. flag in the background.

The Framers designed a republic with the intention to manage factionalism through deliberate compromise and institutional guardrails, whereas 21st-century polarization often treats compromise as a moral failing.

Douglas Sacha, Getty Images

Our Framers on 21st Century Primaries and Polarization

The Framers would view 21st-century closed primaries and political polarization as the exact manifestation of "factionalism" they spent the 1787 Constitutional Convention trying to prevent. They would argue these systems force candidates to appeal to ideological extremes rather than the broad, moderate consensus required for stable governance.

The Danger of Factionalism: In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a "faction" as a group of citizens united by a passion or interest adverse to the rights of others. He argued that while factions are inevitable, their effects must be controlled. The Framers would recognize 21st-century hyper-polarization as the dominance of unyielding factions that prioritize absolute ideological purity over democratic compromise.

Keep ReadingShow less